Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 171

Thread: Early era batsmen

  1. #31
    Cricketer Of The Year Agent Nationaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,468
    Quote Originally Posted by Howe_zat View Post
    How would they have gone against trebuchets?
    Crushed to death just like against Marshall and co.

  2. #32
    Cricketer Of The Year Agent Nationaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,468
    Is there a genetic element to hand-eye coordination (I'm sure the scientists on here would tell us)?

  3. #33
    Cricketer Of The Year Cabinet96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    8,320
    The game has changed too much in the last 100 years to ask how a certain batsman would have gone against bowlers from today. They way they batted, their techniques and method, were designed for getting the best possible output at the time, not trying to impress people who watched cricket in the 21st century. Sure, a lot of the so called great batsman from past eras probably wouldn't be great if they time traveled to now to face South Africa at Cape Town. But the same could be said if Warner and Watson were to go back to bat on a sticky wicket against Barnes and co in the 19th century.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem274* View Post
    This English top three are cornflakes. They're not the most exciting thing out but they're pretty effective. Then the middle order are the sugar. Would be too much on their own but added to the cornflakes they add some much needed interest

    When KP returns he will be the banana..

  4. #34
    Cricketer Of The Year Cabinet96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    8,320
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    What about ATG Drafts though? In a hypothetical Test match made up of players from many different decades you have to make some kind of assumption of how Grace would go against Malcolm Marshall in a 'real live' scenario because that's who Grace would be facing-up to in 'reality'. That's the whole point of the exercise!
    Is it though? If that were really the case wouldn't it have to be pre decided where and when the games were to be played? If I was picking a team to bat in the 2000's I'd probably take Ponting over Grace, but if I was picking a team to bat in the 19th century I'd probably take Grace. I've always just done drafts by picking the best XI that I could based on how the players went in their eras, not on how I thought they would go against other players in the draft.


  5. #35
    Cricketer Of The Year Agent Nationaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,468
    Do you think that the game has changed for the better though? Would you not apply the rules of the game from today's period even if the match was being played in the 19th century. In a hypothetical situation, would you not make the same assumptions such as ground staff, covers, etc.

  6. #36
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The Colonies
    Posts
    42,653
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    What about ATG Drafts though? In a hypothetical Test match made up of players from many different decades you have to make some kind of assumption of how Grace would go against Malcolm Marshall in a 'real live' scenario because that's who Grace would be facing-up to in 'reality'. That's the whole point of the exercise!

    In other words, you can't hind behind the statement 'Grace was the greatest batsman of his time relative to his peers' because it's an All-Time-Great Draft. Grace 'will be' facing Marshall at his 1984 peak whether you like it or not.
    I'm fine with people looking at it that way in that situation, but if I forced myself to then I'd just never partake in one, otherwise I'd probably never ever pick a player who played before 1965 and that'd take a lot away from what I think the exercise is really supposed to be about. I mentally standardise eras. If I think Grace was a better player of pace in his era by X amount compared to the mean of his peers then I go ahead and assume that'd be true if he was born in any other era, for the purpose of the draft.

    Given we're already imagining a situation whereby someone born in the 1800s can face a bowler born in 1980s, with both players at their peaks, I don't think we really have to be too realistic. The purpose of those drafts is to have some fun building teams of players you think were quality across time; not to denigrate the greats of the past by pointing out that - gasp - after playing cricket for another hundred years we've started to get better at it, or on the flip side pretend that WG Grace fresh out of a time machine would force Compton out of the England side and slap around Dale Steyn.

    You're right in that it's an all-time great draft; not a "who would have been great if they were sent to 2013" draft.
    Last edited by Prince EWS; 26-01-2013 at 03:50 PM.
    ~ Cribbage

  7. #37
    International Coach uvelocity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    seamy road
    Posts
    11,289
    the interesting exercise I think would be to see how AN would go in the 1890's. Personally I feel he'd be nabbed for stealing a loaf of bread and transported
    "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts.. . For support rather than illumination. " - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)

  8. #38
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Harsh Reality
    Posts
    4,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabinet96 View Post
    Is it though? If that were really the case wouldn't it have to be pre decided where and when the games were to be played? If I was picking a team to bat in the 2000's I'd probably take Ponting over Grace, but if I was picking a team to bat in the 19th century I'd probably take Grace. I've always just done drafts by picking the best XI that I could based on how the players went in their eras, not on how I thought they would go against other players in the draft.
    Why? Surely the object of selecting a team of cricketers is that they actually get to play a match against an opposing team of cricketers.

    At the end of an ATG Draft it is logical and coherent to assume that Watson's XI WILL BE playing against Cabinet's XI in a hypothetical Test match. Therefore we vote and decide who the winner of the Draft is according to which team is most likely to win in a head-to-head match up on a 'real' cricket field.

    Perhaps we should set some parameters before the Draft starts so we are all on the 'same page'. For example; 'Scenario = To win an MCG Test match circa 1950s'
    PRE WWI
    Grace-Trumper-Hill-Taylor-Ranjitsinhji-Faulkner-Noble-Lilley-Turner-Richardson-Barnes
    PRE WWII
    Hobbs-Sutcliffe-Bradman-Hammond-Headley-Macartney-Ames-Gregory-Larwood-O'Reilly-Grimmett
    POST WWII
    Hutton-Simpson-Kanhai-Pollock-Harvey-Sobers-Waite-Benaud-Davidson-Lindwall-Trueman
    PACKER ERA
    Gavaskar-Greenidge-Richards-Chappell-Lloyd-Botham-Imran-Knott-Lillee-Holding-Underwood
    MODERN ERA
    Hayden-Langer-Ponting-Tendulkar-Lara-Kallis-Gilchrist-Marshall-Warne-Ambrose-McGrath

  9. #39
    Cricketer Of The Year Agent Nationaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,468
    Quote Originally Posted by uvelocity View Post
    the interesting exercise I think would be to see how AN would go in the 1890's. Personally I feel he'd be nabbed for stealing a loaf of bread and transported
    And join the rest of you convicts, nah don't think so.

  10. #40
    Request Your Custom Title Now! benchmark00's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Is this CricketWeb's greatest poster in the short history of the forum?
    Posts
    37,156
    Yeah AN would rather support a team of convicted criminals than actually be one.
    Parmi | #1 draft pick | Jake King is **** | Big Bash League tipping champion of the universe
    Come and Paint Turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Kohli. Do something in test cricket for once please.

    Thanks.

  11. #41
    Cricketer Of The Year Cabinet96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    8,320
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    Why? Surely the object of selecting a team of cricketers is that they actually get to play a match against an opposing team of cricketers.

    At the end of an ATG Draft it is logical and coherent to assume that Watson's XI WILL BE playing against Cabinet's XI in a hypothetical Test match. Therefore we vote and decide who the winner of the Draft is according to which team is most likely to win in a head-to-head match up on a 'real' cricket field.

    Perhaps we should set some parameters before the Draft starts so we are all on the 'same page'. For example; 'Scenario = To win an MCG Test match circa 1950s'
    But like with Pews, that would make my picks very central to the era being played. If the matches were to be played in pre WW I days, I'd probably not pick great modern era cricketers like Gilchrist, Kallis and Tendulkar and instead would look for players who played more at that time, even if I felt they were inferior cricketers, because the truth is they'd probably do better than better modern players would if they were imported to the old days to play a test match.

    I prefer to just pick players based on how they faired in their era, and imagine they would fare similarly in all eras. That probably wouldn't be the case in real life, but I find it much easier to pick and vote for teams that way. I can see your thinking but if I was to vote for an XI based on how I think it would go against other XI's it would be very messy for me.

  12. #42
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Harsh Reality
    Posts
    4,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    I'm fine with people looking at it that way in that situation, but if I forced myself to then I'd just never partake in one, otherwise I'd probably never ever pick a player who played before 1965 and that'd take a lot away from what I think the exercise is really supposed to be about. I mentally standardise eras. If I think Grace was a better player of pace in his era by X amount compared to the mean of his peers then I go ahead and assume that'd be true if he was born in any other era, for the purpose of the draft.

    Given we're already imagining a situation whereby someone born in the 1800s can face a bowler born in 1980s, with both players at their peaks, I don't think we really have to be too realistic. The purpose of those drafts is to have some fun building teams of players you think were quality across time; not to denigrate the greats of the past by pointing out that - gasp - after playing cricket for another hundred years we've started to get better at it, or on the flip side pretend that WG Grace fresh out of a time machine would force Compton out of the England side and slap around Dale Steyn.

    You're right in that it's an all-time great draft; not a "who would have been great if they were sent to 2013" draft.
    That makes no sense to me. As I said to Cabinet,

    'Surely the object of selecting a team of cricketers is that they actually get to play a match against an opposing team of cricketers.'

    BTW The parameter doesn't have to be 'sent to 2013'. The parameter can be set to any era prior to the Draft. I think that it should be stipulated so the Drafters understand which direction we are headed in. At the minute we all assume very different things which may or may not make the whole game more fun.

  13. #43
    International Coach Pothas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Surbiton, UK
    Posts
    10,757
    Err you do know that drafts are not actually real, right?

  14. #44
    Cricket Web Staff Member Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    40,397
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux View Post
    What odd pre-conceptions? Everyone was an amateur and there were no professionals back then. And isn't he known for being a cheat?
    Don't you support Pakistan?
    WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
    "People make me happy.. not places.. people"

    "When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." - Samuel Johnson

    "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn

  15. #45
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Harsh Reality
    Posts
    4,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabinet96 View Post
    But like with Pews, that would make my picks very central to the era being played. If the matches were to be played in pre WW I days, I'd probably not pick great modern era cricketers like Gilchrist, Kallis and Tendulkar and instead would look for players who played more at that time, even if I felt they were inferior cricketers, because the truth is they'd probably do better than better modern players would if they were imported to the old days to play a test match.

    I prefer to just pick players based on how they faired in their era, and imagine they would fare similarly in all eras. That probably wouldn't be the case in real life, but I find it much easier to pick and vote for teams that way. I can see your thinking but if I was to vote for an XI based on how I think it would go against other XI's it would be very messy for me.
    I agree. If the scenario was 'SCG Test match circa 1890s' then I would bias my selections to batsman who have experienced 'sticky wickets'. However, I would still select Marshall no matter what. If he was lethal on 'flat' 1980s pitches then he would be especially lethal on 1890s 'sticky' wickets bowling to batsman with no helmets!

    And again I agree with your term 'messy' as this sort of 'what if' thinking is always 'messy'. But I find it inherently more fun than a reductive approach where you choose a particular player based purely on his performance against his peers.

    'Messy' is better.
    Last edited by watson; 26-01-2013 at 04:24 PM.

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Best T20 Batsmen - Vote
    By Sowester in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 24-05-2012, 10:17 AM
  2. Favourite batsmen?
    By WarwickshireB in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 06-08-2009, 04:56 PM
  3. Why batsmen are preferred over bowlers as captains?
    By Pheobe in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 17-05-2009, 12:42 AM
  4. Mouth-watering analysis this
    By Zinzan in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 09-05-2009, 12:06 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •